Generic Evolution Post

[bryant69]

I don't think kids should have to listen to creationist nonsense from teachers. But while making that self evident point (a point with which 90% of DU's agree with), let's also take a few pot shots at religion and anybody foolish enought to belong to one.

God knows we can never discuss evolution enough. I mean it really is the #1 issue impacting the united states today. Iraq, the Economy, our beloved idiot in the White House, The Environment; all of these are just distractions from what's really important; determining how life began millions of years ago.

In fact, the fact that people might have the wrong opinion on Evolution inexrobly leads to repression at home and violence abroad. If only we can insure that evolution is taught in our schools we can create a just and fair society.

And the place to start is right her on Democratic Underground. I mean forget about attending school board meetings or city council meetings, if you really want to get Evolution taught (and all other beliefs not taught) It's right her on DU that it has to happen. Once everybody at Democratic Underground accepts evolution into their lives, our power will be unparrelled.

So remember Evolution, it's not just a good idea, it's an all consuming passion. Maybe we should change the name of this board to Evolution Underground to let everybody know exactly where we stand on this, the most vital of issues.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[DrWeird]

1. Look, you don't have to take science education seriously.

But don't get upset if some of us do.

And knock off this "pot shots at religion" bullshit.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

2. oh...i think there have been a few pot shots

along the way...actually, pot shot implies a bit of randomness that is not evident...most of the 'pot shots' are rather calculated...

theProdigal

OnEdit : good to see you, Doc

[DrWeird]

7. Yeah, but you've got funny ideas about attacks on religion.

You thought that somebody suggesting that Jesus was gay was anti-christian bigotry.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

8. not even close to what was said

thanks for continuing to distort my complaints

theProdigal

[DrWeird]

9. That's your complaint in a nutshell.

Somebody said that Jesus was gay and you went to the Administrators to complain about it. "Oh! It's bigotry! He's denigrating Our Lord and Savior by claiming he's one of those homosexuals!"

[ProdigalJunkMail]

12. nope...was pissed because someone started a thread

about a topic that could not be proven one way or another and therefor was nothing more than flame-bait...if you had read through the 200+ responses to it (like I know you did as we conversed a bit) then it was evident that it pissed off a lot of people...

Go back and re-read my posts...they were about the complete inability to prove it in either direction...and the sad part of this little scenario of yours is that I (in a response to you) said that whether or not Jesus was gay wasn't even an issue to me and then stated that Paul very well could have been gay from what could be gleaned from his writings.

Sorry you think I thought THAT was bigotry...there is plenty else here that goes on that is bigotry...

theProdigal

[DrWeird]

14. Mhhmm. Like my post where I called Creationists certifiably stupid.

Which you ran, again, to complain to the administrators about as being Anti-christan bigotry.

Hey, Ku Klux Klan members are christians too. if I call them stupid is it anti-christian bigotry? How about Fred Phelps?

[ProdigalJunkMail]

15. calling someone stupid because of their beliefs

is pretty much a textbook example of bigotry. And technically yes...go look up the definition of bigotry...it is pretty clear. I complained because it is a violation of this boards policies to post bigoted statements. Creationism (whether you believe it or not) is a religious point of view. You called them stupid. That is bigotry. I am sorry if you do not like the definition...I cannot help that...

theProdigal

OnEdit : KKK and Phelps are bigots too...but they just don't believe like you do...so it would be full-duplex bigotry

[K-W]

16. What kind of wacky textbooks do you use?

Last time I checked, calling somebody stupid because they persistantly believe untrue things despite clear evidence was more fitting with the textbook definition of stupid.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

17. you can look up a definition of bigotry anytime you like

i cannot help it if you and some other people on this board do not understand that using demeaning language toward a group of people for their beliefs is bigotry.

Just saying something like, "I think you are wrong." or "You ideas are not consistent with facts in evidence." would not be bigoted. Calling them stupid is...calling them morons is...calling them dumbasses is...

theProdigal

[K-W]

18. So calling people stupid for believing stupid things is bigotry?

There is real bigotry in this world. Of all the words to cheapen for your rhetoric, why bigotry?

You dont have to be a christian to have a stupid idea of how life developed.

This has nothing to do with christianity, it has alot to do with stupidity.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

19. bigotry is well defined...i cannot help that you don't like the definition

and i agree with you...but there is an explicit rule that religious bigotry will not be tolerated on this board. And unfortunately the textbook definition of bigotry happens all the time here...and it pisses me off. I don't even believe the literal interpretation of the creation story in the bible...but there are people who do...and demeaning them only serves to piss them off and drive them away when so much of what the democratic party stands for would probably be appealing to them.

Please, keep calling people stupid...for whatever they believe...

theProdigal

[K-W]

20. Edit, nevermind this is silly.

Bigotry is a fairly subjective judgement anyway.

But calling stupid people stupid is nothing to be ashamed of.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

21. the dictionary is plain on this

bigotry

\Big"ot*ry\, n. 1. The state of mind of a bigot; obstinate and unreasoning attachment of one's own belief and opinions, with narrow-minded intolerance of beliefs opposed to them.


big·ot

One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

The fact that you diferentiate between christians and creationist is the problem. They are both religiously held structures of belief...creationists ignore facts in evidence on evolution or explain them away with supernatural causes and effects...that goes against what many people believe...but it is still a religion inspired belief in them and to call it stupid is still bigotry...especially if calling christians stupid is bigotry...

I just get so tired of what goes on here driving people away. Yes...there are some people that cannot be won over and driving them away is no big deal. But some of the creationists would gladly accept many of the tenets of the democratic party...but will never get past being called stupid...

theProdigal

[K-W]

22. that definition doesnt apply to this thread, you remain totally wrong

bigotry

\Big"ot*ry\, n. 1. The state of mind of a bigot; obstinate and unreasoning attachment of one's own belief and opinions, with narrow-minded intolerance of beliefs opposed to them.


big·ot

One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

--------------------------------------

Creationism isnt a religion friend, it is an individual belief, it is wrong, and calling someone with an individual belief that is wrong 'stupid' is not bigotry by any definition.

You are misaplying the very definition you quoted.

Try going through the definiton and proving all the parts. Heres a hint, you cant.

All you can prove is that Dr. Weird thinks that people who believe in creationism are stupid. Fairly obviously this is based on the belief that creationism is so contrary to the evidence as to be a good hint that the person who believes in it cannot think rationally and is, stupid.

It has nothing to do with groups or bias or unreasoning attachment.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

23. then christianity is an individual belief as well

is it not? i don't understand how you are diferentiating them since they are both beliefs based on a book written a couple thousand years ago (give or take). There is a group of people who firmly believe each of them and they are not mutually exclusive...you can be one and not the other or you can be both or you can be neither. How does that make creationist belief individual and christian beliefs religion?

theProdigal

[K-W]

24. Of course it isnt. It is a religion.

Are you even being serious?

Christianity is a set of related beliefs found amongst a certain group of people.

Creationism is one specific belief.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

26. yes, i am serious

creationism...while a single belief in and of itself...is most often tangled in with another belief...such as christianity, judaism or islam. I know of no one (while I don't know everyone) that believes in the creation story of the book of genesis who is not a member of one denomination or sect of one of these religious faiths. Creationists do not stand solely on that...and while many here seek to deride creationism as a single, stupid idea it isn't that simple. Creationism is a subset of a larger religious faith...it DOES have no basis in fact and cannot be supported through scientific means. But, it is a part of part of MANY christians/jews/muslims' faith. It does not stand alone...

I can see your point...but the fact remains that it really never stands alone as a single belief...at least not in my experience...but if it WERE to stand as a single belief, then I would agree with you.

Thanks for the polite discourse!
theProdigal

[K-W]

30. That isnt bigotry. You are totally off topic.

It doesnt matter whether the belief is related to a religion, your definition of bigotry does not list as bigotry "Finding fault with a belief that is tied to religious beliefs"

You kee trying to redefine bigotry.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

32. as you wish

sorry you don't see it my way...keep pissing people off...i can't help and promise not to try any more...

tP

[K-W]

34. Misusing a word is not "seeing things your way", it is being WRONG

You made a totally incorrect accusation of bigotry.
You then gave the definition of bigotry and then proceeded to argue that it was bigotry even though it didnt fit the definition you provided.

You have yet to support your accusation and show exactly how Dr. Weirds comments qualify under your definition. Instead you give an argument about the idea being tied to religion. A fact that while true does not relate in any way shape or form the the definition of bigotry you yourself provided.

The amazing things is that you lecture me on pissing people off when you are making an unsubstantiated accusation of bigotry. I guess we should all be as kind as you.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

35. yep...never mind that they are a group...

they hold a belief that directly forms a foundation of their religion...and calling them stupid is demeaning...guess that doesn't work for you...i'm done...say what you will...keep pissing off people that could otherwise be won into this camp...fine...

tP

[K-W]

36. So calling people bigots with no justification is a way to make friends?

You have yet to provide a single argument that actually relates to the definition of bigotry that you yourself provided.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

37. that whole previous post doesn't relate in any way?

right...it perfectly matches the definition provided...

group...
belief...
intolerance...

[K-W]

38. So now to prove a definition you just have to relate 3 words?

You speak an interesting language. One I am not terribly familar with. In my language, for a definition to fit, you have to actually prove the specific definition, not just show that 3 words from the definition are in some way related.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

39. here...bye

bigotry

\Big"ot*ry\, n. 1. The state of mind of a bigot; obstinate and unreasoning attachment of one's own belief and opinions, with narrow-minded intolerance of beliefs opposed to them.


big·ot

One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.


I guess that won't help either...

[DrWeird]

40. "intolerant of those who differ"

So if I said "ku klux klan members are stupid" you'd be offened and go and complain to the mods?

[ProdigalJunkMail]

44. strawman...but it certainly won't win Klansman to the dems...

sorry...just tired...you people just don't get it. Keep pissing people off. Keep screaming that religious people are stupid. Keep lamenting that the religious in the country are the problem. Throw up strawmen to mask the issue. Keep lying about my previous disagreements with you and not retracting your statements. All of these things have been done. They will continue here. And it serves no valuable purpose other than to vent your frustration and piss people off. Rage on...rage on...

this thread is going to be ignored from this point forward...you don't and won't get it.

[Name removed]

46. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[K-W]

You are inventing things and making outrageous accusations.

Nobody said religious people are stupid. that is a product of your imagination.

Everyone gets what you are saying. You are just wrong.

[K-W]

47. Dupe

dupe

[K-W]

41. That definition proves you wrong. So yah, I do think it helps.

You need to prove that Dr. Weird is "is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ."

You havent proved that.

So far you have proven that Dr. Weird thinks people who believe in the literal biblical creation story are stupid. And that this story is related to some religions.

That is all you have proven. How you dare lecture anyone after your haphazerd use of the word bigot is beyond me.

So until you prove that Dr. Weird is a bigot, you remain massively in the wrong here.

[bloom]

43. When people are making reasonable arguments based on facts

they are not bigots when they disagree.

It seems like there is some new kind of use of the word on DU when people call scientists "bigots" when the scientists make arguments based on facts and others want to make arguments based on faith.


I think the use of the word bigot applies to people who are basing their ideas on faith and want to discredit other people without using facts.


(Is this some kind of new right-wing meme or something - that is what it sounds like - I must have missed it).

[Ando]

45. Examples

These are only examples, they are certainly not my beliefs.

I think you are stupid for being Gay

I think you are stupid for being Black

I think you are stupid for being a Christian

I think you are stupid for being a Creationist

Aren't these all examples of bigotry?

[DrWeird]

48. Nope.

Try this one:

"I think you are stupid for being Jewish"

"I think you are stupid for being muslim"

"I think you are stupid for voting for Bush"

"I think you are stupid for being Mexican"

Are all those examples of bigotry?

[K-W]

50. No, by your definition everything is bigotry.

If you dictionary revisionists are right, anyone who disagrees with anything that more than one person believes in is a bigot.

[Ando]

51. Sorry, wrong implication

I completely agree with you, that's what I was trying to prove. I guess it was understood in the opposite way. Oops.

[DrWeird]

27. Creationism isn't a "religious point of view".

It's a pseudoscience. It makes specific claims about the natural world. And those claims have been proven false. Dressing it up to look like religion doesn't change that fact. They fit the textbook definition of the word stupidity. And calling them on it isn't bigotry. Not any more than calling people who believe the world is flat stupid is bigotry.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

28. hey doc...please see #26 and you'll see why i have such a problem

with this.

theProdigal

[bryant69]

3. Ever evolution post

has plenty of pot shots at religion. If you don't want to see them, or pretend they aren't there, that's fine. But they certainly are there. Personally i'm pretty sure that's the point. What's the point in debating an issue 90% of the people here agree on? Or why is it so offensive that some people don't accept evolution as the only answer?

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[DrWeird]

5. That other 10% is pretty sickening.

That other thread about holocaust denial is right on the money.

[K-W]

6. nevermind

im not gonna argue evolution here, for the obvious reasons

[K-W]

4. Yah, lets just ignore the obvious role of irrational thought

in our current political quagmire so that religious people dont feel like they are being oppressed by the tiny powerless group of atheists.

[UdoKier]

10. The separation of church and state is the keystone of democracy.

Without it, the whole thing collapses. The minute you say that on e religion's dogma can be taught as scientific fact, you are opening the door to let that religion impose its values on EVERYONE via the law and the classroom.

It is of the UTMOST importance that religion be kept out of the public school classroom, no matter how much you belittle the idea.

[K-W]

11. Just read the abstinence literature.

Once you give them a foot in the door of editing education to meet thier ideologies they flood it full of misinformation.

[Fleurs du Mal]

13. Absolutely agree

What most fundies don't realize is that this separation is just as crucial to their right to worship.

[bloom]

25. It beats the heck out of arguing about Woody Allen....eom

[ProdigalJunkMail]

29. what could we possibly argue about Woody Allen???

I mean...he was real...right?

theProdigal

[bloom]

31. you must have missed it

Some people hold strong negative opinions based on the Soon-yi, etc. incident (and would rather not think about him - I shouldn't have brought it up). Others do not.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

33. yep...missed it...

sounds like it might have been a little more interesting...

theProdigal

[Cats Against Frist]

42. If you have any idea how stupid that that sounds, you wouldn't have

written it.

If someone who is analyzing the current situation of the world today has a hard time seeing how modernity, science and the enlightenment are under attack -- they shouldn't be a political commentarian.

The evolution argument may be a "red herring," but it is part of the science v. god, debate, better known as the modernity v. fundamentalism and those who still hang on to the "quaint" notion that modernity has led to some of the greatest social, political and technological advances in human history, might feel just a shade poorly about the neo-fascist narrative in this country which has literally threatened to "change reality." Unfortunately, Christianity is a huge part of this debate. Or fake Christianity, as it may be.

[bloom]

49. There are many implications

Like whether one even "believes" scientists about global warming or just assume the world is going to end anyway....